Government Role Still Uncertain As Weapons Are Beaten Into ... ?

Politicians Debate Defense Conversion Plans

WASHINGTON — An important question is being raised from Connecticut to California this election year, a question that is central to the future of the nation's economy:

As the Cold War fades into the pages of history, and the nation scales back defense spending, what should the government do to help the 1.5 million Americans who are likely to lose their jobs as a result?

The presidential candidates, who often agree on little else, all say they have a plan for defense industry conversion.

Eager-to-please incumbents in Congress proudly point to a $1.7 billion plan they adopted this year as evidence of their concern.

Still, many questions remain. Are the programs equal to the task? Are defense contractors interested in shifting from profitable military work to civilian jobs? Will the help get to those who need it most?

The questions are especially pertinent in Connecticut, where federal defense contracts last year equaled $1,515 per state resident, the highest in the nation.

All the candidates have indicated they recognize this potential for social disruption, but Democrats are trying in the final days of the campaign to portray themselves as more sensitive than President Bush.

Bush does have a conversion plan, although it did not come as early or include as much money as the Democratic proposal. Independent Ross Perot says he also supports conversion, although the details of his plan are unclear.

The plans have similar objectives: relieving the pain that communities, companies and workers suffer as the government reduces defense spending.

The need for a plan is apparent. One estimate says each $1 million cut from the defense budget directly wipes out 15 production jobs and as many as 35 more among suppliers, subcontractors and others. The 1.5 million workers who could lose

their jobs by 1997 include 1 million civilians in defense and related industries and 500,000 military personnel.

Since the end of World War II, defense industry officials said, they cannot recall cuts as severe as those currently expected. After the world war, though, pent-up demand for civilian products provided a huge incentive for companies to convert. That incentive does not exist today. Thus, in the current weak economy, defense cuts create the potential for economic disaster in some areas, analysts say.

House Democrats were the first to respond, embracing a $1 billion conversion program in early April. A month later, Senate Democrats endorsed a slightly more expensive proposal.

The Bush administration was last to weigh in, with the White House announcing May 28 what it said was a two-year, $7.1 billion plan to assist military and civilian employees and communities affected by defense cutbacks.

Critics promptly asserted the White House lacked commitment because it had repackaged a variety of existing training programs under the heading of defense conversion while committing only about $1 billion in additional funds over the next two years.

Even while it was announcing a new program, critics said, the administration was only slowly releasing some $200 million in conversion assistance Congress approved in 1990.

More questions about the administration's commitment came in September, when Defense Secretary Dick Cheney sent Congress a letter saying the conversion proposal it was then considering was "not necessary, would be an inappropriate use of defense funds, and would be at the expense of needed national security programs."

Congress ignored Cheney's objections and passed the $1.7 billion plan with little partisan dissent. Democrats say the money is a good beginning, but that it is only that. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., said Democratic presidential nominee Bill Clinton has pledged to implement the plan if he is elected.

Bush, who agreed to the legislation, continues to tout his own plan, which would provide various forms of counseling, job-search help, training assistance and income support for workers completing retraining.

Still, Democrats heap scorn on the Bush plan. "We have effectively filled a policy vacuum left by the Bush administration," said Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M.

But in the first campaign debate this fall, Bush spoke proudly of his proposal. Referring to himself in the third person, Bush said, "Look at what the president has proposed on job retraining. ... It's a good program."

Little attention has been focused on Perot's plan, perhaps because he has provided few details. "We need to implement a well-conceived and deliberate plan to restructure the defense budget to match the post-Cold War reality," Perot says. But his best-selling book, "United We Stand," gives little hint of how he thinks restructuring should work.

By contrast, the Democrats' plan attracted a good deal of attention as it worked its way through Congress.